Spoken like a true liberal

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  It was stupid as soon as you called a guy a "true liberal" for espousing  "less government intervention" conservative policies.

This is among the most disingenuous arguments you've made, and that's saying a lot.

"Without law, there can be no freedom." 

You again can't differentiate between libertiarianism and anarchy.  Go get a dictionary.  

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 05:31 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You again can't differentiate between libertiarianism and anarchy.  Go get a dictionary.  

Anarchy is when we are ruled by spiders, correct?

[GodHatesBengals]

I love how Fred's point, that the conservative, faux-libertarian "less government" crowd are totally hypocritical in their support of the justice system, was completely evaded by the OP.

The funny part is extreme Randians will admit that they DO believe police forces should be privatized.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-25-2015, 05:31 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: This is among the most disingenuous arguments you've made, and that's saying a lot.

"Without law, there can be no freedom." 

You again can't differentiate between libertiarianism and anarchy.  Go get a dictionary.  

First of all, what Fred describes is not anarchy. It sounds more like anarcho-capitalism; the hard Randians and the Milton Friedman crowd.

Second, why not debate the logic here instead of just saying how absurd it is? If health insurance, social security, the minimum wage etc. are all left better in the "free" market's hands... why not police?

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2015, 05:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A thread begins the moment someone opens the window to start creating a new thread, not when it is published. You cannot abort this thread.

This thread cannot survive on its own. It needs others to post in it to ensure it flourishes; therefore, we are well within our rights to abort it. The rights of the poster that can survive on his or her own must be considered the top priority.

Now let me say: I absolutely hate the act of aborting threads, but the liberties of the poster cannot be ignored.

[BmorePat87]

(08-25-2015, 07:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This thread cannot survive on its own. It needs others to post in it to ensure it flourishes; therefore, we are well within our rights to abort it. The rights of the poster that can survive on his or her own must be considered the top priority.

Now let me say: I absolutely hate the act of aborting threads, but the liberties of the poster cannot be ignored.

A thread with no title and no text is not a viable thread. Even a thread with just a title is not viable. 

[Johnny Cupcakes]

Every thread, no matter how regrettable*, deserves the chance at flourishing. who knows which thread could be the next to become epic and unforgettable. Terminating the thread before it gets the chance to be posted in is a blatant denial of the thread's rights.

*I reserve the right to make an exception when an OP is forced to make a thread against their will.

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2015, 07:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This thread cannot survive on its own. It needs others to post in it to ensure it flourishes;

Not true.

A thread is a thread even if no one ever posts a reply.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 07:47 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: First of all, what Fred describes is not anarchy. It sounds more like anarcho-capitalism; the hard Randians and the Milton Friedman crowd.

Second, why not debate the logic here instead of just saying how absurd it is? If health insurance, social security, the minimum wage etc. are all left better in the "free" market's hands... why not police?

Because it's too absurd of an argument, that I didn't think it was necessary to address.

How about if he's really in favor of such a thing, that he (you know, the guy that brought it into the discussion) be the guy that backs up his belief that it should be with some argument?

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-25-2015, 08:41 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Because it's too absurd of an argument, that I didn't think it was necessary to address.

How about if he's really in favor of such a thing, that he (you know, the guy that brought it into the discussion) be the guy that backs up his belief that it should be with some argument?

We all know he's not actually in favor of such a thing, but he is correctly pointing out the inconsistency of your own position. So, why not privatize the police?

Could it possibly because introducing the profit motive (euphemistically called "competition" by faux-libertarians) does not necessarily improve the quality of a service or product but actually introduces motives to unfairly treat clients?

Please try to respond with something other than deflection or "socialist".

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-25-2015, 08:56 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: We all know he's not actually in favor of such a thing, but he is correctly pointing out the inconsistency of your own position. So, why not privatize the police?

Could it possibly because introducing the profit motive (euphemistically called "competition" by faux-libertarians) does not necessarily improve the quality of a service or product but actually introduces motives to unfairly treat clients?

Please try to respond with something other than deflection or "socialist".

Of course you're correct, but wouldn't that be a good reason to not privatize police forces?

How is that in any way, shape, or form inconsistent?  I wasn't aware that believing in a free market and competition means that it's absolute. 

Why don't we privatize the entire justice system as well?  I guess I'm a faux-libertarian because I'd overwhelmingly oppose such a thing. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-25-2015, 09:16 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Of course you're correct, but wouldn't that be a good reason to not privatize police forces?

Wouldn't it also be a good reason to deprivatize healthcare then?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-26-2015, 08:16 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Wouldn't it also be a good reason to deprivatize healthcare then?

Are you suggesting that the quality of healthcare wouldn't be affected if profits were disallowed?  

[*michaelsean*]

(08-25-2015, 01:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Isn't asking for less government regulation a conservative ideology?  Why should Wal-Mart go crying to the government to fix their problems with shoplifters.  Let the free market fix it.

Plus Mitchell is the pastor of a Church, so I am betting he is socially conservative also.

So the title should be "Spoken like a true conservative."

That would be fine if people were allowed to deal with it on their own.  They are not.  

[fredtoast]

(08-26-2015, 09:08 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Are you suggesting that the quality of healthcare wouldn't be affected if profits were disallowed?  

I don't see how.

Does medicine only work well if you pay more for it?

Would doctors intentionally mess up if they were not making such large profits?

The more profits that Wall street made the worse they got in their practices until the whole show finally collapsed.  So I don't see why there have to be large profits in order to get good health care. In fact doctors may not order so many meaningless procedures or prescribe as many medications if there was not such a huge profit motive. So the actual health care may actually improve.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-26-2015, 01:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see how.

Does medicine only work well if you pay more for it?

Would doctors intentionally mess up if they were not making such large profits?

You're a lawyer, right?

Does a client get the same quality of service from a public defender as they do a high profile defense attorney? 

Should we make attorneys a non-profit institution as well?

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-26-2015, 09:08 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Are you suggesting that the quality of healthcare wouldn't be affected if profits were disallowed?  

No more than the quality of policing is affected by the lack of profits. Sure, if you're wealthy enough you can get the absolute best healthcare you could ever imagine here; I imagine those with the cash would have pretty awesome police protection, too.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-26-2015, 03:47 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: No more than the quality of policing is affected by the lack of profits. Sure, if you're wealthy enough you can get the absolute best healthcare you could ever imagine here; I imagine those with the cash would have pretty awesome police protection, too.

Are you seriously advocating for the implementation of for-profit police agencies or is this some ridiculous attempt to justify more collectivism? 

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-26-2015, 03:57 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Are you seriously advocating for the implementation of for-profit police agencies or is this some ridiculous attempt to justify more collectivism? 

It's so "ridiculous" that it appears you cannot rebut it other than to call it ridiculous.

Let's put it this way: I find private police as absurd as private health insurance; this is a consistent position. You are the one who cannot explain why you are in favor of one and not the other.

I eagerly await more pithy deflection.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-26-2015, 07:36 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It's so "ridiculous" that it appears you cannot rebut it other than to call it ridiculous.

Let's put it this way: I find private police as absurd as private health insurance; this is a consistent position. You are the one who cannot explain why you are in favor of one and not the other.

I eagerly await more pithy deflection.

I'm pretty sure that public safety is the responsibility of members of the community to pay for.  I have a vested interest in making sure that there's law and order in my community.  In fact, I'd say that public safety is priority number one for local government.

Forgive me for not giving a rats azz if the person down the street doesn't have healthcare when he catches a cold. 

Anymore ridiculous arguments regarding this topic, or did that pretty much cover it?